Consensus process (the idea that a group must strictly adhere to a protocol where all decisions are unanimous) is the absolute worst idea that has ever been introduced to the activist community.

Consensus process is the tyranny of the individual. It is the most anti-social of all processes because it allows any one person to assert irrational authority over an entire group of people and block any sort of decision making. It has nothing do with anarchism (even the IWW doesn't use consensus!) because it was invented by Quakers for religious reasons. It's stood in the way of progress, destroyed social movements, destroyed groups, destroyed communities, and relegated radicals to the fringes of American politics since the 70's when it was first popularized.

Consensus process is in many ways an attempt to formalize the act of resistance, which I suspect is what makes it so popular in activist communities. Let's compare this to democracy, a system which was invented to formalize dissent. With democracy, you could fight and disagree without resorting to violence. Feathers could be ruffled, progress could be made, and life moved on according to plan. Resistance on the other hand is when you're so angry at something, that you're willing to go on a crusade and use all available means to stop that thing from happening Resistance knows no rules. It is something that should never happen, yet is the responsibility of any socially conscious individual. It's a wild beast which cannot be tamed. Now ask yourself what happens when you get a bunch of people in one room, people whose nature inclines them towards resistance, and then give them the power to resist with a simple hand gesture and a requirement that all others be subservient to their demand. You do the math.

To give an example, the first time I saw a block used at Occupy was at one of the first general assemblies in August 2011. There were about a hundred people that day and in the middle of the meeting a proposal was made to join Verizon workers on the picket line as a gesture of solidarity in the hope that they might also support us in return. People loved the idea and there was quite a bit of positive energy until one woman in the crowd, busy tweeting on her phone, casually raised her hand and said, "I block that". The moderator, quite flabbergasted asked why she blocked and she explained that showing solidarity with workers would alienate the phantasm of our right-wing supporters. Discussion then abruptly ended and the meeting went on. The truth was irrelevant, popular opinion didn't matter, and solidarity—the most important of all leftist values—was thrown to the wind based on the whims of just one individual. Occupy had to find a new way to do outreach.

But as bad as that sounded, it was actually one of the most graceful instances I've seen of a block being used. This is because the proposal was actually dropped as though it never happened. Things don't always go so smoothly. Blocks have a tendency to bring out the worst in people. The thing they don't tell you about consensus, is that it only works if you're willing to exclude others from it. When faced with a block, it's common for people to use psychological manipulation, threats, invent process to deny that person a vote, or even pressure them to leave the group entirely. Oftentimes when such people don't get their way, they'll leave the group themselves. Consensus invites the most awful type of conflict because there can be no agreeing to disagree. But at the same time consensus also quells the more constructive forms of dissent because most considerate and rational people aren't masochistic enough to welcome the hatred and backlash inherent in blocking a proposal.

Consensus process can also be hacked. This is because it leaves too much to interpretation, doesn't actually specify procedure, and doesn't make sense! Take for instance kicking someone out of your group. Do you need consensus to kick them out? Or do you need consensus to keep them on board? Oftentimes such things aren't clear, so the system becomes ripe for manipulation and exploitation. If you ever want to be evil and push a proposal through a consensus body, just make a compelling argument that you need consensus to not pass your proposal (rather than the other way around). If that doesn't work, try writing your proposal with the opposite language and blocking it yourself. If people call you out on your shenanigans, just accuse them of being authoritarians who refuse to follow process and demand that they either step down or reach consensus on creating a rule to forbid what you’re doing. Then block that proposal too. If they tell you that you’re not allowed to block then you can always complain that true consensus cannot be reached until there’s a quorum of every single group member present.

Grassroots activist groups also follow the spirit of consensus regardless of what process they use. This is because participation in occupy assemblies, working groups, and affinity groups is entirely voluntary. Generally speaking, these groups do not control any land or resources upon which their members depend, therefore making it nearly impossible to practice any real coercion. When freedom of association exists in the truest sense of the words, the act of participation in and of itself can be considered itself a form of a consent, even if decision-making power rests in the hands of the majority or an individual leader.

Consensus should be reserved to teams (small groups where people work well together and trust one another) as de facto rather than official process. Many of us operate by implicit consensus without even realizing it. It’s a natural human behavior to not want to piss off and ignore other members of your team. But when the occasional irresolvable conflict arises, a majority vote isn’t the end of the world. It’s called democracy. If those conflicts happen too often, then perhaps it’s time to reconsider why you’re working with such people.

When it comes to deliberative process for larger groups that can’t be considered teams, start off with what's been known to work and has stood the test of time, like Robert's Rules of Order. It’s not the ideal system to prevent all forms of hierarchy, but it’s at least been proven to work in organizing democratic assemblies that are capable of functioning. Why must we reinvent the wheel? The only clear explanation is that it’s fun to fetishize process rather than accomplishing work. There are actually people who've devoted much of their careers as activists to unnecessarily reinventing process, and for years they've been using entire activist communities as guinea pigs in their experiments. Why must we allow ourselves to be pawns in someone else's game? Our goal should be fighting power and injustice, and we should settle for no less than the best tools for the job.

But we also shouldn't have to follow Robert's Rules by the book all the time. Oftentimes people will forgo formal process entirely until it's needed. It's also perfectly reasonable to borrow good ideas from other processes. One such example is the "progressive stack" which Occupy has used from its very first general assembly meeting. This means when you have a meeting and ten people want to speak at once, one person will be assigned to "take stack" by writing down the names of whoever has their hand raised. The person taking stack will then prioritize speaking order in favor of people belonging to groups whose voices have traditionally been marginalized. Examples of such groups include women, people of color, and the lgbtq community. This is great news if you're a queer trans woman of color, but not such great news for straight white middle class cis men whose voices have far too often dominated discussion. Another great tool for facilitating collective thought is the temperature check, where everyone in the room twinkles their fingersto express how favorably they feel about the topic of deliberation. But in reality, that’s just a more fabulous variation of Robert’s Rules where the chair will try to gauge support for a proposal during deliberation by asking everyone in the room to say aye / nay or give a show of hands.

The only significant experimentation we should be doing with process at this time is trying to find ways to use modern technology to make democracy more democratic. For the first time in the history of civilization, we are able to scale up conversations to span the entire globe. A deliberative assembly no longer must be limited to the number of people capable of fitting in a single room. Why are we not taking advantage of this? Several attempts have been made to develop such systems, but most of the existing solutions are either shoddy, hard to use, or focus on anonymous voting rather than deliberation. These systems also do not make an effort to define the procedural conventions to govern the aspects of software use which cannot be digitized. Engineers, please start teaming up with process experts to accomplish this.

Does anyone else feel like it's kinda fucked up that the first post on this topic made it sound like there was going to be a back'n'forth debate around this issue, but for a week now this article has presented a very, very one-sided viewpoint on consensus-based decision making?

i mean, regardless of my own opinions on consensus decision making, i just find it a little odd that OWS would take such a biased stance and basically issue a directive (in this post's heading/title, no less!) to Occupiers "Stop Using Consensus!".

Where is the article advocating all of the positive points of consensus decision making and explaining why, from day one, we have sought to remain a de-centralized and leaderless movement?

Are you telling us, Thras, that you had a fall out with Jart and decided to take it all the way to her forum? If you manage to take all or some of the people that come to her forum to another forum or abandon it all together then you win? AND if you fail there then you will do everything within your power to disrupt it to the extent that no one wants to come here?

No, I don't want to take this forum down or anyone away from it. I had a falling out of sorts with jart, but that's OK. We actually agree on many things at the moment. You know this site was originally planned as a way to organize events on the ground right?

If you read this OP on Consensus that jart wrote above, she mentions an idea that is very close to my concept of a Bridge to the Ground.

"The only significant experimentation we should be doing with process at this time is trying to find ways to use modern technology to make democracy more democratic. For the first time in the history of civilization, we are able to scale up conversations to span the entire globe. A deliberative assembly no longer must be limited to the number of people capable of fitting in a single room. Why are we not taking advantage of this? Several attempts have been made to develop such systems, but most of the existing solutions are either shoddy, hard to use, or focus on anonymous voting rather than deliberation. These systems also do not make an effort to define the procedural conventions to govern the aspects of software use which cannot be digitized. Engineers, please start teaming up with process experts to accomplish this."

Jart and I both see eye to eye on the essentiality of a software of this nature.

Like I said to many users, it's not either/or. This forum can be kept alive. No problem. What's important is to create a piece of software that lets people from all over the world communicate and affect change so that what they discuss can be transformed into action.

Jart said herself that this forum became about politics instead of Occupy. That's fine. But, we need a forum about Occupy, and the only way to do that is to have one where the users on the forum are connected with the happenings on the ground.

Why should Internet users remain mere observers?

if you fail there then you will do everything within your power to disrupt it to the extent that no one wants to come here?

If people refrain from coming here it's not because of me. That's just a lame excuse. I was gone for a very long period. A period which saw a steep decline in the user base of this forum. If anything, I generate more activity.

Thras, it is apparently NOT OK. Your behavior indicates otherwise. Your continued attacks indicate otherwise. Simply because you agree with what she stated on consensus does not mean that somehow everything is hunky dory. You do realize that we actually share information until one of your IDs or buddies decides to screw up a thread for your own shit purposes.

What has become very clear is that your issues really don't have anything to do with any one of us personally. Your issues have to do with Jart. You are more than willing to screw with everyone else just to get to her. That is vindictive and petty and very, very small minded.

Wow, you are full of delusions. I don't attack this site. I don't know where you got that idea. Many many users you and others think are me and not. In any case, I don't care what you want to fantasize about. I'm here to express ideas. That's all. If you don't like them you are more than welcome to disagree. If you use arguments, then we can have a discussion. If not then it's just a waste of time.

I think we can talk about the issue jart and I raised on this forum. Most users are intelligent enough to comprehend the necessity of such a software. I don't see why this should be discussed on another forum. Sure, this forum has become about politics, but it can't hurt to discuss Occupy related issues once in awhile.

In any event, jart posted about it on this very page, so I think talking about this software, this Bridge to the Ground, is right at its place.

People need to decide forthemselves. If you agree with "anti-consensus", then great!, if you agree with the "pro-consensus", the great! but decide for youselves; dont conform for the sake of 'solidarity'.

"I worked under a "consensus method" for more than a year. Unlike OWS we had an agreement that we would have a unamimous agreement before we did anything. It was a work group with only 15 people, including the department head.

It was messy and didn't get much done. We had problems with our facilitators hijacking our meetings as well. The problem with faciitators in a consensus style is that they have more power than anyone in the actual group. Whowever assigns the facilitator has the ability to manipulate the group by the methods used by the facilitator.

Who picks the facilitators at OWS.

Umpires in baseball are like facilitators. Can you imagine how the game would change if for example, the New York Yankees selected the umpires?"

The above comment from this discussion on the Daily Kos illustrates the a fundamental problem with consensus - the process of facilitation is too open to corruption and abuse.

Using the word Consensus is propagandistic and utopian because it cannot provide consensus. Non-agreements and omitted ideas are counted as externalities, but this is a lie, they're a non-consensus.

Good ideas get lost, but more importantly any idea can get lost, allowing even restorative plans to be locked out, progress can be stalled, energy wasted, focus diverted, these are costs, they cannot simply be regarded as nothing.

One of Occupy's main focus should be to balance competition with cooperation by promoting cooperation. Consensus fails here. Cooperation does not mean one has the right to disrupt the whole society, it means you learn to coexist in society, you learn to live with disagreement, to get along, natural as the complexities of real life relationships. Everyone should have a voice, but the individual must be balanced with community. Hyper-indivdualism should not be allowed to corrupt process.

The consensus creed of 'impartiality' and 'objectivity' is code for moral disengagement. For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others. This requires individual non-violent sacrifice, a rebalancing of the individual with community, the I with the We.

The current consensus system does not correctly re-order the social structure - how people should relate themselves to society. It's a cop out, it allows self-interest to pollute, it does not integrate self into community while simultaneously maintaining individualism. It instead tries to create community with hyper-individualism - an impossibility.

"The current consensus system does not correctly re-order the social structure - how people should relate themselves to society."

Exactly, my only quibble would it is not people relating to society but people relating to one another as the BASIS for society. Modern society is too focused on the self, driven by consumerism and a childish notion that freedom means you can do whatever you want.

Here is something that took me a while to come to terms with - it is Solzenitsyn definition of freedom he wrote:

"After the Western ideal of unlimited freedom, after the Marxist concept of freedom as acceptance of the yoke of necessity - here is the true definition of freedom. Freedom is self-restriction! Restriction of the self for the sake of others."

You do realize that the whole ME attitude has its roots in the flaky ideas of Freud, which were taken up by big business to create hyper-consumers.

Take a look at Adam Curtis' doco The Century of the Self. It is very revealing and quite disturbing to realize that all that "I am me, I am an individual stuff" was invented to ensure that POWER always stayed with the elite, and democracy became nothing more than a pressure valve to be released once in a while.

What big business discovered was that the atomization of society created great consumers - hyper-consumers and hyper-individuals. When people see everything through the lens of the self they become easy to manipulate. Many simply become docile, uncritical, thinking how wonderful it is to be so free - but this freedom has been redefined as the freedom to fulfill an unending array of wants. The freedom of the slave.

trickle down economics to benefit the wealthiest at the expense ofthe middle/working class, weak regs to benefit (energy, finance) corps at the expense of people, invading the privacy of people in their bedrooms, exploding the deficit with and war war & more wasteful war.

Ayn Rand is an ignorant women who wanted people all to think the same as her. She wanted people she disapproved of, thrown in jail or killed.

I am NOT Ayn Rand.

I want people to think for themselves and to allow others to do the same. Whether I agree with you or not is irrelvant.

Glenn Beck, on the other hand, is a violent hypocrite who supposedly advocates for non-violence, but then defendes the 2nd amendment, the right of justifiable homicide and the actions of the US military. He also praises violent revolutionaries like George Washington.

Nice article. Also very important, Robert's Rules already operates (all the time) with the understanding that the group can deviate from the Rules as long as there is no objection, so RR is actually very, very flexible in that regard.

It's important to note that RR is the result of an organic process. Henry Robert developed the completed version by studying how various procedures had developed organically all over the US in the 19th century.

fwiw, my article is not taking exactly the same view as this one. In my view, any formalistic process can be hacked - consensus, majority vote, roberts rules, or whatever. I've seen real examples of all of them. (Ever see a Marxist party drag a hundred people into a meeting to vote something down? I argue for not putting your faith in a mechanical application of rules of any sort. The key is to develop habits of mutual respect that allow us to discuss rationally. In the example given, the idea that the blocker would just block and everyone would let it go is a sign a a deeply disfunctional community. (Mark Lance)

The idea that consensus is the same as a unanimous vote is both sadly common and fundamentally misguided.

Consensus means doing the hard, patient work of searching for a well-founded unity from which to operate together. However, that's not the same as letting any one voice stop something from happening that the rest of the group feels ready to move forward on. The fundamental question is less "Did everyone agree?" than "Did the group slow down enough to listen to and genuinely consider dissenting ideas (so that the proposal can be modified and improved)?"

Every group using consensus effectively finds a robust method for responding to inappropriate blocks. Quakers, for example, state clearly that inappropriate blocks can simply be overruled. See this article for more info: http://treegroup.info/topicsA9-blocking.html.

The author is concerned that "Consensus process can also be hacked." Well yes, and so can Robert's Rules in parliamentary procedure, hello Congress anyone? There are steps a group can take to prevent the most common hacks, such as using a fallback vote to overrule a block, having clarity about membership boundaries, and refusing to tolerate crappy behavior.

The author goes beyond disregarding the lengthy historical record of successful consensus to accusing those who disagree of caring more about the process than about getting anything done. Bullshit. Someone can think majority vote is an insufficient decision process for building the revolution without caring any less or being any less effective. Their belief is often based in a commitment to prefigurative politics, wanting to walk the talk of things being different, so that we don't end up a situation of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss." And in fact those people may actually be more effective because they are likely to do a better job of listening to those who disagree with them, starting by discussing ideas instead of attacking misperceived motives.

So, dear author, i get it that you are seriously frustrated by the shortcomings of the attempts at consensus process at Zuccotti, as were many other people. I assume that your pitch here is because you want to see the movement succeed, as do i and many others. I'm a longtime consensus teacher and nonetheless i do not think consensus should be used in every decision situation, i think we need to pay attention to what works when.

Thus your statement, "The only significant experimentation we should be doing with process at this time is trying to find ways to use modern technology to make democracy more democratic," seems terribly short-sighted to me. If we had already arrived at a decision process that met the movement's needs, we'd all be using it already. Wishing for simplicity won't make complex realities go away. I think we need to keep on working on this stuff, because that's the only way we're going to figure it out.

-stop using consensus
-resistance is an angry crusade
-consensus can be hacked
-people don't like pissing each other off
-we need to fight injustice with the best tools
-we should experiment with tech, not process

I have so many issues with the content and delivery of this article it breaks my heart, like my departure from the Occupy scene did a year ago. But I think the author's authoritarian, proscriptive view on how revolution should or shouldn't happen speaks for itself, and the cancer of hubris that ate OWS out from within.

There are no such thing as occupiers anymore, btw. Just kids chasing excuses to solicit and then spend other people's money, regurgitating what was real discontent and now is really just sigh depressing.

No inspired ideas, just people who are hipper on how to start a revolution than you are. Hey, I have an idea, let's throw a party for a better tomorrow. You bring the PBR, I'll bring my badass scarf and anarchist buttons.

I've watched the active participation around Occupy Detroit slow down incredibly since October 2011. I've been a member of a board using Roberts Rules, and I attend Detroit City Council meetings. There is a better way than consensus. I do agree progressive stack is helpful, but as a white "cis" male yes it can be rather interesting waiting to find the topic transform and finding my position in relevance lost.

A major problem with consensus early in within Occupy was that it was just poorly understood. Many people saw it as an almost legislative procedure, as opposed to being a fluid, dynamic mode of organizational practice. Consensus should never take place solely within a meeting, but should be the result of conversations and debates held between the stakeholders outside GA, and then only formalized within the meeting. Furthermore we also saw a great deal of issues and decisions brought to consensus that didn't really need to be (such as 'do some people want to join the picket line'). I do strongly agree that we need to avoid "fetishizing process" (and probably more broadly avoid the phenomenon of fetishization in general), however I don't think that we should totally write off experimentation or a concern with organizational modes. Simply reverting to Roberts Rules of Order because we shouldn't try to "re-invent the wheel," and that voting=democracy, strikes me as a reactionary and insufficient response to Occupy's organizational mistakes and challenges.

The classic explanation for consensus not working is always, 'well obviously you had a poor understanding of consensus or didn't fully embrace it'. Consensus must be some form of new age esoteric knowledge.

Consenses is a mature process and requires mature individuals to practice it. It is truly a practice and one that is perfected through use and familiarity. It is a misconception or at least a misaddaptation to think that consensus requires unanimity, this is simply not true but it is the norm when used by groups who are not well versed in its nuances. I agree that the use of stand asides is seldom practiced insted of the more common miss-used practice of blocking. Blocks are to be used rarely and only if there is a real oversite being seen by someone in the process who is seeing with the whole group mind. Again, it takes mature individuals to hold this mindset throughout a decision making process. The group is then to address the block rather than simply drop the proposal all together. A single individual should never be allowed to totally derail the entire program, that is an abuse of the groups time and energy and shows disrespect for the whole and for the concept of consensus.

At any rate, it is a very difficult process to use in large, ever changing, ever evolving groups of people. Concensus works best if practiced by groups with long standing experience with one another and true trust. The suggestion that it be used in smaller settings between fewer folks and with a clear agenda is a good one. Remember that it took the Quakers generations to define and develop the use of consensus, and they lived and prayed together for lifetimes. To expect a bunch of radical thinking folks who are on a mission to accomplish something in a thoughful though quick manner by using a sophistocated method of decision making like consensus is a nobel but neive idea. Bottom line, if you want to build a loving community - use consensus , if you want to get something done quickly - use Robert's Rules of Order.

I appreciate the point the author is trying to make - I myself have been reminded to "respect the process" on many occasions for speaking out of turn when the process was already breaking down.

HOWEVER, there are a number of assertions in this article that are not supported by facts, and others that are patently false. If you think consensus is the tyranny of the individual then that is because the process you are witnessing is not actually true consensus.

Consensus in its truest form is a meeting of the minds in which free and unbiased discussion proceeds until a clear solution or course of action becomes apparent to the group. This is certainly not the way it's practiced among some of the GAs I've attended, but it IS the ideal.

Consensus was not invented by the Quakers!!!!!!! It has been practiced in one form or another for as long as humans have been making collective decisions. Consensus DID NOT destroy social movements and marginalize radicals in the 1970s.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE if you want to complain about the way consensus is (is not) practiced among Occupiers, then do that. But, don't expect us to believe that majority-based Robert's Rules is some kind of alternative. And PLEASE if you want to make an argument, then get your facts straight.

BTW re: progressive stack - how do you identify people who belong to groups that have been marginalized?!? By what they look like? How their dressed?

A meaningful functional consensus process is NEVER (has NEVER BEEN) about the rules. It's about the facilitators knowing how to make sure everyone is included and how to move the discussion forward. And, its also about people being willing to participate in the process - that means leaving a lot of baggage at the door, treating each other with respect, learning how to listen, cultivating humility in our own hearts, so that when someone shares a thought or idea, we can recognize its true value.

For my part, when people tell me to respect the process, I say "the process is only as good as its results" More specifically, the formal rules and procedures of the consensus process are a dime a dozen. What matters is that the process of building consensus (unlike voting) can facilitate a genuine meeting of the minds, which is a rare and precious site to behold when it all comes together.

"...if you want to complain about the way consensus is (is not) practiced among Occupiers, then do that."

Regardless of one's views on consensus-based models of decision-making, this article is absurd. It extrapolates from one experience that consensus (of some undefined variety) doesn't and can't work. It goes on to hold responsible consensus for the failures of radical movements since the 1970s; as though, were it not for that blasted consensus, the revolution would have already happened.

I haven't seen consensus practiced at an Occupy-related meeting in close to a year, yet Occupy is still faltering and capitalism still hasn't been overthrown.

I don't know who invented consensus group decision making (if it has a historical cause) but Quakers have used it extensively. As a ninth generation American Quaker I feel entitled to call it a fraud. It's an unreachable ideal (that everyone can reach the same conclusion through the power of reasoning) that degenerates into a dictatorship of an ingroup.

As a British Quaker I am sorry to say the Quaker business method has been misrepresented here. Decisions are made not based on consensus or unanimity, but unity, which can encompass dissent. Through patient listening to each other, God, and/or one's deepest resources in silences, a way forward is found which can be surprising in its wisdom and inclusivness. It is definitely not about the power of reasoning, but discernment through love.
This takes work. We, as Quakers and Occupy Veterans, need periodic reminding about our values because we're human and we forget or get scared. We need to find ways to nourish ourselves, replenishing our ideals and care for each other in order to keep the faith in the face of the huge challenges.

Let me add, that, yes, I understand every word you are writing and every thought behind it. But let me say, of course a dictatorial ingroup would view it as a successful process.

I suggest to all Quakers interested and any one else perplexed by their dealings with individual Quakers, that they read Scott Peck's People of the Lie. It's about the mentally ill evil, otherwise known as the Perfect -- individuals with shriveled hearts and souls, some of whom through ostentatious do-goodism convince themselves of their perfectness (at great cost to everyone close to them).

Great post. I'd love to see consensus go away, so long as the focus of OWS stayed as nonpartisan as possible. I'd also like to figure out a way to better network with people remotely, since I'm not in NY.

Specifically, I'd like to find a group of Occupiers that wants to push to break up the banks. I agree with Matt Taibbi that breaking up the banks should be "the Holy Grail of activist goals." It's achievable! It's nonpartisan! And yet I'm having an extremely hard time networking with people interested in achieving that goal.

If we could get rid of consensus, then something like a focus on breaking up the banks might be possible. I'd love to see that happen.

I don't see anything wrong with getting money out of politics, but that issue isn't as directly tied to Wall Street as breaking up the Wall Street banks is.

In truth, I go back on forth on which is more important. Breaking up the Wall Street banks could go a long way to preventing another, more devastating financial crisis, but getting the money out of politics would help us get better votes (which might therefore lead to a break up of the banks).

So I strongly agree that getting money out is supremely important. I'm just not sure it's the best goal for Occupy Wall Street.

After all the hoopla and consensus and blocking and then, throw in the fact that if you missed a few days, decisions were still being made, may be kind of a sign of why many people long before us decided its best to elect people to deal with this stuff on a full time basis, and pay them to do it.

Most people simply dont have the time for long long drawn out situations that last 2 hours, with about 15 other issues to still be discussed afterwards.

Throw in the people that will block because they have friends watching on livestream who want to block, and you have a real royal mess :)

Highlights the whole problem with any form of direct democracy. Not that people don't want to have a say but because the complexity soon overwhelms them. Throw in some bickering, heckling, hectoring and manipulation turns all this into apathy.

In the case of the Verizon proposal, those who were in favor should have, as individuals, joined the picket line if they were so inclined. At most the consensus rule should have applied to group actions. It should not have been interpreted to proscribe individual actions.

Large groups can and should seek consensus, meaning general agreement, but cannot operate on the basis of unanimity. The blocking rule implemented operation by unanimity, not consensus.

You err in associating anarchy with IWW. IWW isn't an anarchic organization.

You're just butt hurt because you don't always get your way. One of the beauties of humanity is that we have seperate and autonomous mind each capable of thought independent of one another. We are human, not the Borg!!!

I strayed in here because I was replying with a zinger against a random Ayn Rand smear. I have now opened all the comment threads and saved it out. This is a classic, one of the most hilarious discussions I have ever seen.

Ayn Rand has a meme the goes something like this: I feared the great enemy all my life but after a monumental quest got him cornered in a room, only to discover he was a craven rat scurrying to hide in a crack in the wall over in the corner.

It used to be, once upon a time, that an individual who was part of the collective whole of OWS, would be very careful to always bracket their own opinions and viewpoints with "I am only speaking for myself"
To me, this was a very important way of respecting the diversity of the voices contained within the collective whole. To not do so belies an arrogance that does not acknowledge or respect the existence of diversity. This arrogance utterly and completely lacks any shred of humility or collectivism.

That is what this article does. It pretends to speak for all of OWS. The only reason it is able to do so is because of access to power in that whom ever wrote it is an admin on this web page. PERIOD. This is not the voice of OWS. This is the voice of One Person who is pretending to have some sort of authority over the rest of us.

It's written in an authoritarian voice, right down to the actual title. "Occupiers! Stop using Consensus!" As if spoken by a Queen or a Monarch. Dear Anonymous author: "Stop Telling People what to do!"

Focusing on process puts the vision on hold. It delays the implementation of the will of the people. The only problem being that 100 people will have 100 independent wills. But we want the force of a will of 100 people and the synchronization will take talent, luck, and leadership of each individual to recognize what is really the best course of action. The ideas and concepts that have come out of the Occupy movement have been grand, yet what of them have been implemented?

"General agreement", this is the definition of "consensus". Notice this is not 100 agreement, as that is always unlikely,. the idea is to facilitate the most agreeable actions, not to generate 100 percent agreement from all individuals, herding cats comes to mind,. fun.

Seems people sure do get caught up in debating the debating,. .

Realize, that groups voluntarily organised do not need 100% agreement. If you don't agree with the general consensus (agreement) of a particular group, perhaps you are aligning yourself with the wrong group,. there is nothing wrong with finding/organizing another.

People seem to loose sight of the fact that in a voluntary organization you are free to leave. I believe this is the largest key that is missed by the opponents of this process of social organisation.

As in buddhism, when enough people disagree widely from the main group, it is time to move off and agree together as a new group with a new aim. The ability to 'agree to disagree' is inherent in the very idea of consensus.

The practice of exclusion, or people moving out of a group based on disagreement will result in just lots of opposing factions (re: 2 party system). And worse, the group discussion will be like preaching to the choir. Everyone needs to listen to opposing viewpoints; first to better understand what issues they may have not recognized and second, to learn. No one is a complete expert for solutions. Most great solutions were the result of lots of adjustments to an original idea. And yes, we need to learn to "agree to disagree" that is based on mutual respect, something this forum sorely lacks.

To create a "big tent" (inclusion) it will be necessary to focus on one or two critical issues and leave the rest for another day. This is a form of agreeing to disagree. The other factor to be considered is compromise... Insisting on ideological "purity" as a litmus test will drive people away.

We don't have to agree on everything, just what is necessary to get the job done...

I like the idea of getting focus to the critical issues. It helps to move forward and accomplish something. There seems to be a constant introduction of more and more issues that clog things up. Yes, there are many issue, priorities need to be set. Use "Rome wasn't built in a day" as guidance.

If you want to pin the failures of the social justice movements of the 60s and 70s on a single cause, then I would suggest the same thing that is holding us back now - drug and alcohol abuse. Substance-abuse has been the elephant in the room since the beginning, but instead of dealing with it like the public health issue it is, so many occupiers have adopted the idea that getting shit-faced and fucking shit up is the highest form of resistance, even though the only thing that actually gets fucked up is the work we're trying to accomplish. It breaks my heart seeing so many beautiful, talented, radical people I've come to know and love, drinking and drugging themselves to death. You want to fix the OCCUPY movement ? Let's start there.

I actually posted something last year about how to end the violence associated with drugs, here and Mexico, etc. all I asked for was to stop using, if you want to try to legalize, then do it the legislative way but don't just break the law. I even discussed the cost savings (tax) that would be realized. But mostly I got attacked for it. Most responses were selfish. They would not give up drugs, rather they wanted it legal, blaming government laws for the violence and problems.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but there can be no free market, by definition, if a good, product or service can be banned legislatively. All markets are controlled politically. In which case, the only free market is the black market.

The aim is to get people acting like the interdependent class of people they are. Consensus does not support this essential way of thinking, it says almost Republican like that you can simply walk away from the science, it even builds a framework for this to happen.

Occupy needs to see itself not as a constructed set of ideas or memes, but as a realist movement which seek's to raise awareness on our reality - and within this awareness the critical need for change is automatic.

I think I can safely say that none of us expected this as part of the Consensus series. At least not the first piece after the announcement.
It does make sense that consensus can and does work on a smaller scale where people are trusted. Like food Not Bombs. Even where it is used on a larger scale like Spain and Zapatista controlled areas - consensus is used on the neighborhood scale. Unlike America, there can be no "outsiders" as people know the other people in their neighborhoods - those regional bodies then report back to the larger central assembly.
I have seen consensus make an okay idea in to a really good idea. But, I have more often seen really good ideas die due to blocks.
There certainly is not enough stand asides used and people certainly tend to lack vision or the tactical skills to look beyond their own narrow concerns or assess when they can go along for the sake of team.

My ideas~ Reaffirm your take on agenda. Assure yourselves that the problem has not changed. Look at what there is to do that will not risk your personal well-being in any way your opposition risks theirs, and engage by any means two gathered together may see in sensible purpose for achieving the Result you know will benefit the largest number. Live your efforts as Love.

Interesting article indeed. Stop using consensus? I was like whaaaa?. Don't u just hate that guy who always threatened to block? Kind like the guy who bids a dollar more than the last guy on the price is right. Lulz

Consensus is nothing more than CONSENT. By mangling the language used to describe it, you uphold a "process" that sounds complicated, and therefore becomes complicated. Most folks who are part of OWS working groups have only experienced this version of "consensus". So I don't blame them for criticizing it. This essay alone makes it obvious that many have "fetishized" consensus, even giving it a made up name. "To consense" sounds like something one has to study before taking part it. Disappointing. Also, to ask me to log in so that you know who I am, but to leave this essay anonymous, is unjust, and definitely not transparent. Names like "occu[iers" come straight from a high school mentality. This is the sad part of our movement. Lack of reflection and a refusal to see that each of us is another part of our collective psyche, not someone else, outside of us.

ha without consensus, OWS is meaningless. I stop supporting you here. The world doesn't need another sierra club or greenpeace. Why not just start a lobby group? or a super pact, yeah that's it, ows super pact. I can't believe consensus is being debated. First it was property destruction, now consensus. Your movement has lost all credibility, these discussions have been resolved in the radical movement decades ago. All time low.

Wait, but oops it takes 10% of the people at GA to block, not 1, oops someone got caught telling a tall tale, evidenced in this quote from the above article...
"There were about a hundred people that day and in the middle of the meeting a proposal was made to join Verizon workers on the picket line as a gesture of solidarity in the hope that they might also support us in return. People loved the idea and there was quite a bit of positive energy until one woman in the crowd, busy tweeting on her phone, casually raised her hand and said, "I block that". The moderator, quite flabbergasted asked why she blocked and she explained that showing solidarity with workers would alienate the phantasm of our right-wing supporters. Discussion then abruptly ended and the meeting went on. The truth was irrelevant, popular opinion didn't matter, and solidarity—the most important of all leftist values—was thrown to the wind based on the whims of just one individual. Occupy had to find a new way to do outreach."

Ironically, if one would have written this on the forum he would have been considered a troll by shadz66, zendog, DKAtoday, and friends. Now that it's written here they will all agree like little robots following orders.

In the previous article you asked if we should use consensus or not. You didn't even bother reading the comments and contributing to them, and now you come out with this piece. Interesting.

These Occupy articles feel like they are coming from the hand of some God. They are written by anonymous writers, and the writers never contribute to the ensuing discussion in the comments. It's like the comments don't count one bit.

I think you're using a red herring. I agree with misfit below. Occupy is failing and you're trying to find an excuse as to why so you point to consensus in the hope that people will think - "Ya, consensus was the problem, so let's start again without it!". The problem is it's too late, and Occupy was consensus. It was built around that idea. It's at it's core. Take away consensus and you don't have Occupy anymore. Remember, "We want to see direct democracy on each street corner". You're going to lose a lot of followers if you throw away your bread and butter - direct democracy.

Now you want Occupy to become hierarchical? With representatives? A party perhaps? Then why are we here? Why don't you just start a political party?

People should live for to better themselves. I am not here for the betterment of the group.

Consensus allows ALL people a say regardless of what the majority decides. In a true common law republic, "consensus" does not impede upon the majority's ability to decide, but it does preserve the right of the individual to tell the majority that they are fucking idiots every now and then.

Get rid of the fruity hand signals and the cords your mother gave you and speak for yourself.

The "intelligent" majority? Really? That is why 4 years with Obama have done sooooooo oh soooooo well.

In fact there is not a single human being on earth capable of being a good politician. This is a physical limitation as well as an intellectual one. The fact is that only I can represent myself and only you can represent yourself. No one can represent me for me, without my consent.

If each and every person is not afforded the perfect freedom to express themselves in a public forum (free of charge), the it isnt really freedom.

The filibuster is the perfect incarnation of Free Speech. Without there is NO freedom of speech in the public forum. Closing the door on ignorance will only create more ignorance.

I am more than happy to hear your ideas, but you must afford those who disagree with you the same courtesy.

Political parties and representative democracy are the problems, democrats republicans, they are all the same.

Yah, I agree that there shouldn't be an unlimited liberum veto, but that does not mean the replacement should be a simple majority. Each assembly should decide for itself what constitutes a "consensus". Whether it be 70%, or 80% or 90%.

I want to avoid a dictatorship of the majority as much much as some want to avoid a totalitarian dictatorship.

The goal is to have it so that each person only has power over themselves and no one has power over any other.

Freedom is the inherent state of all things. You can only gain freedom when you have previously given it up.

If you dont give up your freedom, then there is no more freedom to gain because you are already perfectly free. If someone else gives up thier freedom, but I dont, I am still free, while they are no longer.

concensus was George Soros tool to weaken the confrontational nature of Occupy and make it a bureaucratic irrelevant organization. An active minority lead the masses historically, We can make decisions in general assembly. Unanimity means nothing significant will occur.